Charlotte Bronte's immortal tale of love and separation has seen its fair share of adaptations over the last century of filmed entertainment. Regurgitated time and again for both television and the big screen, "Jane Eyre" has been bled dry, with filmmakers of diverse backgrounds hungry to make their mark on a most celebrated story. Now, director Cary Joji Fukunaga steps up to courageously guide another look at the novel, unearthing something that's eluded many filmmakers throughout the years: A fresh approach.

Orphaned, abused, and disregarded by her elders, Jane Eyre (Amelia Clarkson as a child, Mia Wasikowska as an adult) has endured a frightening life of hardship, finding her sense of individuality stifled as she attempts to shape some type of existence for herself. Taking a job as a governess for the estate of Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender), Jane is quickly challenged by the irritable man, who clearly seems enlivened by the presence of this educated young woman. As their relationship grows, a turbulent sense of love develops between the pair, with Jane willing to give herself to Rochester, only to find secrets from his past coming back to ruin him. Also challenging Jane is an interlude with Rivers (Jamie Bell), a clergyman who takes the frazzled woman in during a time of need, only to find himself disarmed by her extraordinary aura.

"Jane Eyre" has traveled quite a distance since its initial 1847 publishing, leaving an impressive string of interpretations in its wake, most centered on the primal needs of the period romance, with Jane and Rochester a prime pair of restricted lovers. This latest exploration of Bronte's work (elegantly adapted by Moira Buffini, "Tamara Drewe") takes a decidedly sophisticated approach to the central love story, making the pairing of Jane and Rochester something enigmatic, uncomfortable, and taboo. Fukunaga transforms the story into a mystery of sorts, rearranging the events of the book to better pierce into the protagonist's spinning headspace, flawlessly capturing the internal spasms of a lady on the run from her past, fighting for the freedom she craves, trapped in a severe society that doesn't permit such luxuries. It's an unusual take on the material, but an enormously successful artistic choice, with legitimate suspense flooded back into the story, handled with tremendous care by the director, last seen guiding 2009's masterful drama, "Sin Nombre."

The picture isn't a classical romance in the least, with delicate candlelit cinematography on the hunt for claustrophobia and confusion, keeping the film in a state of suspicion, greatly enhanced by the skillful performances. Fassbender's Rochester is special curiosity, crafted into an antagonistic personality who is visibly charged by Jane's arrival. He pokes and prods, looking for an intellectual challenge in a sea of obedient employees (including Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax), finding Jane to be a remarkable development that flushes away his escalating distaste for life on his vast estate. Fassbender is itchy and vulnerable as the character, avoiding overt red beams of swoon to play a profoundly private churn of attraction. Wasikowska is equally as masterful, articulating the burden of Jane's life with glances and tremors, communicating a volcanic disappointment with the smallest of movements. It's an exceptional performance, portioned heroically by Fukunaga, keeping the pair in a harsh standoff position until the ice is ready to thaw. The courtship contains unexpected elements of frustration, making the paring more about unleashing raw passion than gloved-hand worship from afar.

Fukunaga's "Jane Eyre" is a fantastically compelling, spellbindingly photographed motion picture, soaking up the bitterness and regret that defines the emotional ooze of the story, while twisting around ridiculously known elements to expose darker, substantial moments of seduction. There's little sunshine allowed here, with the feature finding fertile dramatic ground in pained expressions and gut-rot frustration; however, in Fukunaga's capable hands, there's undeniable beauty in all the misery and turmoil.

Full disclosure here: During my academic years and movie-going life, I've managed to miss ever reading "Jane Eyre" or seeing a movie based on Charlotte Bronte's novel.

It certainly wasn't on purpose. I've always wanted to see Franco Zeffirelli's adaptation of the gothic romance novel or "The Wide Sargasso Sea," which tells the story from the point of view of the crazy lady locked in the attic.

My "Jane Eyre" drought came to an end though with Cary Fukunaga's moody, gorgeously shot and beautifully acted film. Fukunaga has turned what could have been a dry costume drama into a fresh and vibrant film. It's manages to be romantic, spooky, funny and grand at the same time.

There's just something compelling about watching poor Jane (a wonderful Mia Wasikowska, who proves her performance in "The Kids Are All Right" wasn't a fluke) trudge across the unforgiving British moors in a torrential downpour or exploring the creepy corridors of Thornfield Hall, with that crazy lady locked in the attic.

And then there's her romance with the mysterious Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender, who's best known for his terrific performance as a dashing English spy in "Inglourious Basterds").

It's unabashedly, well, romantic as we watch their growing attraction to each other despite their class differences, she's a governess and he's the lord of the manor. Simply put, the story is irresistible. It's no wonder there've been countless movies based on the novel.

The story follows the sad tale of Jane. As a young child, her parents die, putting her in the care of an unpleasant aunt (a scary Sally Hawkins) who ships her off to a cruel boarding school for girls. The school prepares Jane to become a governess for wealthy families. Her first job is at Thornfield Hall, where Mr. Rochester needs someone to educate the child of a dead French woman, probably a prostitute.

Jane and Rochester fall in love, of course. Their romance, though, is made complicated by odd goings-on in Thornfield Hall. We're talking screams in the night and mysterious fires.

All this mysterious action is handled in exacting fashion by Fukunaga, whose first work — "Sin Nombre," an exploration of gang violence in modern Mexico — couldn't be more different than "Jane Eyre." Fukunaga gives this adaptation an air of immediacy and even modernity. This is no stuffy period piece.

So go see "Jane Eyre," a movie that will enchant both people familiar with Bronte's beloved book or those who have never been introduced to the story's charm before.

It is ironic that Charlotte Brontë’s 1847 novel “Jane Eyre,” one of the books that could be most relied upon to elicit groans and yawns from a high school English class, is also one of literature’s most frequently adapted for the screen. For this reason, and because it has been done very well in the past, we are forced to wonder if this latest version of the story about piety, suffering in silence, smoldering eroticism and Gothic horror was truly necessary or merely a filmmaker’s passion project.

Necessity is certainly debatable, but this new adaptation’s quality is not. “Jane Eyre” is a sumptuous, transcendent melodrama — it feels more tragic, more authentic and more alive than ever before.

Mia Wasikowska steps into the shoes of Jane, a young woman who, after a childhood spent at a soul-crushing boarding school where she was taught little more than how to endure pain, becomes the governess at Thornfield Hall for the cold Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender). Astonishingly, the plain, penniless Jane and the aristocratic, wealthy Mr. Rochester fall for each other. Happiness, it seems, is finally in our heroine’s grasp. But it will be sorely tested when Jane discovers that Mr. Rochester is hiding a terrible secret.

Director Cary Fukunaga (“Sin Nombre”) and cinematographer Adriano Goldman shoot “Jane Eyre” as if it were the offspring of Stanley Kubrick’s “Barry Lyndon” — much of it by candlelight. The famed heather-crusted moors appear as something otherworldly, shrouded in mist and fog, and echoing ghostly voices carried on the wind.

Dario Marianelli’s score is, by turns, plaintive and tender and as menacing as the rain-lashed heath.

The script, evoking not just Brontë, but also Dickens and even Cinderella, is told through the skillful use of flashbacks; it is trim and nimble, showing evidence of great compression but equally grand narrative economy.

This is easily the most spiritual of the adaptations. Fukunaga mines the Gothic horror elements of the novel better than any of his predecessors, evoking phantoms, ghouls and specters — of course, the only demons here are secrets, clamoring to get into the light.

It is also the most blatantly feminist. “I wish I could have action, have a life, like a man,” Jane tells us, conjuring freedom and free will as untasted ideals.

Alone and isolated in the world, she has no choice but to secure her own future as best she can. But doing so requires that she abide by a suffocating legion of rules and social mores designed to stifle her sex’s ambitions. The ability to act, without constraint or prejudice, and the capacity to think as she wills, without fear or insincerity, is Jane’s ideal.

Wasikowska, not a gorgeous actress nor as appropriately plain as she is made out to be here, does a tremendous job as the courageous, humble, feisty and candid Jane — virtues that might come off as insufferable affectations were the heroine and the woman bringing her to life not so authentic. Jane is not a saint, but she does endure her unjust sufferings without self-pity. A life of hardship has created a backbone of steel that somehow stopped short of her heart.

The great Fassbender plays Rochester not as a raging dynamo, as has been done in the past, but rather a sullen, abrupt, cynical and deeply wounded human being. At first glance, and, to be honest, several glances beyond that, we genuinely don’t know if he is a good man or even a likable one. But because Rochester’s Victorian wildness is never far from his dashing charisma and innate goodness, he never feels cut off from Jane’s redemption or ours.

The result of all this fussing is neither stiff and inflexible nor radically divergent and reimagined. It is exactly as it should be: a dynamic romance that rings true with the most important critic of all, our hearts.

A 5 star review for Jane Eyre-Thursday, March 31, 2011 By Carla SinclairAdvertising

Though written over 160 years ago and the Sparknoted bane of thousands of English essays since, the story of Jane Eyre may still yet have life to it.

Director Cary Joji Fukunaga’s 2011 film version of Charlotte Brontë’s 1847 novel gives an antiquated yet modern touch to the classic story. It’s certainly not the first- there have been at least ten other big-screen versions made in the past hundred years- but I wouldn’t call it a remake.

Mia Wasikowska’s performance as Jane Eyre, though following all of Brontë’s requirements (quiet, simple), was compelling, fresh and totally believable, and Michael Fassbender’s Rochester (Eyre’s love interest), brought an intensity to the screen that balanced Wasikowska’s quiet grace. Almost every character and actor fit very well and true to the time period, as was the costume, which in period pieces can be a bit comical.

Personally, what I found best was the cinematography. The first scene begins with Eyre running through a vast, dark English moor and from that point on the scenery is something straight out of a painting, and the manors in which Eyre’s ‘tale of woe’ takes place look like they are straight out of, well, a Brontë novel.

Fukunaga’s Jane Eyre is captivating, not too difficult to follow and even funny- not to mention heart wrenching. Even if you aren’t a fan of the classics I would definitely recommend this, for the aesthetics if anything. It truly does the novel justice.

There's something about Jane Eyre that keeps filmmakers and viewers coming back to her.

The 19th-century book “Jane Eyre,” by Charlotte Bronte, has been adapted for the screen many, many times. I've seen four versions: with Joan Fontaine and Orson Welles (1944), Susannah York and George C. Scott (1970), Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt (1996) and the new version with Mia Wasikowska (“Alice in Wonderland”) and Michael Fassbender (“Inglorious Basterds”). The York-Scott film, made for TV, is my favorite, but the latest “Jane” also is first-rate, with strong performances by the leads.If You Go

Directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga, written by Moira Buffini, based on the novel by Charlotte Bronte, 118 minutes.

The story, in brief: Jane (Wasikowska) is an orphan who, after suffering through years at an orphanage, obtains a position as a governess at a mansion. The owner, and Jane's employer, is the brooding Mr. Rochester (Fassbender), who is initially abrupt with his daughter's new governess, but quickly warms up to her when he realizes the depth of her intelligence and character.

There is a chemistry that develops between the two characters, complicated somewhat by the fact that Rochester seems destined to marry an attractive young woman of his own social standing. There also is a dark secret from the past that, once revealed, becomes an even greater obstacle to the future happiness of Jane and Rochester.

Even if you're not familiar with the story and get caught up in its mystery and intrigue, I'd argue that the primary virtue of this story is what draws Rochester to Jane: her character. If ever there was a role model in fiction, she's it. A victim of cruelty, greed and fate, Jane, even as a child, maintains an extraordinary level of compassion, courage and dignity.

Even though, physically, she is considered “plain” (which is kind of funny, given she's been played by such beauties as York), Rochester, to his credit, sees beyond the external and knows he's in the presence of someone special, someone who, through example, can help bring out the best in him.

It's the stuff of a great love story, and director Cary Joji Fukunaga (who made the exceptional “Sin Nombre”), working with a script by Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”), makes the most of it with this hauntingly beautiful retelling set in mist-shrouded rural England.

Certain films give you the same satisfaction that comes with reading a great novel. This is one of them.

The book is called "Jane Eyre," but when it comes to its numerous movie versions, whether it's Orson Welles in 1944 or Michael Fassbender right now, the actor playing Edward Rochester often ends up with the lion's share of the attention.

That's because the brooding master of Thornfield in Charlotte Bronte's 1847 novel is one of literature's archetypal romantic heroes, a complex and troubled individual who is sensitive, poetic and, as Lady Caroline Lamb famously said of Lord Byron, "mad, bad and dangerous to know."

A part like that is catnip for performers who can play the rogue male, and Fassbender swallows it whole.

He's a German-born Irish actor who is about to break big with roles in the next "X-Men" movie, a Steven Soderbergh thriller and "Prometheus," Ridley Scott's "Alien" prequel.

Fassbender energizes not just his scenes with Mia Wasikowska's accomplished but inevitably more pulled-back Jane, but this entire film.

Bronte's romantic novel of a young governess engaged in a classic struggle for equality and independence has, as noted, been filmed a lot: One count lists 18 theatrical feature versions plus nine telefilms.

But it's not always had a director with as much of a flair for the five-alarm-fire dramatics of its plot as Cary Joji Fukunaga.

As his first film, the Sundance success "Sin Nombre," demonstrated, Fukunaga is an intense, visceral filmmaker with a love for melodramatic situations.

His no-holds-barred styleAdvertisementis more successful here than in his debut because the necessity of working within the boundaries of Bronte's narrative provides just the right amount of structure to showcase his talents.

One of the shrewd choices Fukunaga has made is to emphasize the natural gothic aspects of the story.

Thornfield, where much of the action takes place, is an old dark house after all, and expert cinematographer Adriano Goldman beautifully captures both the building's candle-lit spookiness and the desolate beauty of the surrounding Derbyshire countryside.

Fukunaga has also invested heavily in the film's physical details, working with his production team, including production designer Will Hughes-Jones, art director Karl Probert, set decorator Tina Jones and costume designer Michael O'Connor to create a period world where even the badminton equipment looks fearsomely authentic.

Similar care has also gone into casting, with equally good results, including the impeccable Judi Dench as redoubtable Thornfield housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax, Jamie Bell as the obtuse cleric St. John Rivers, and Sally Hawkins of "Happy-Go-Lucky," smartly cast against type as Jane's awful aunt, Mrs. Reed.

Wasikowska, Tim Burton's Alice and the daughter in "The Kids Are All Right," looks exactly right as a heroine the author famously described as "plain and small as myself."

Wasikowska acquits herself well here, but without a lot of access to the book's florid recounting of her rich interior life, her performance is of necessity restricted to the narrow view the world has of her.

And that, especially for people not well-acquainted with the book, does hamstring the proceedings somewhat.

Because screenwriter Moira Buffini ("Tamara Drewe") has shrewdly chosen to tell the story not chronologically, as the novel does, but through flashback, it is Wasikowska's adult Jane whose acquaintance we make first.

Clearly a determined young woman, if a distraught one, Jane is shown fleeing a house in what we soon see is complete despair.

A woman with no resources in the middle of nowhere, she lands, drenched and exhausted, at the doorstep of a home occupied by two sisters and their minister brother St. John Rivers.

They take her in and gradually the film reveals what brought her to this state.

It starts with a dreadful childhood, raised by that aunt who has no use for her followed by an even bleaker period in a charity school run by people who delight in mistreating children.

A passionate truth-teller whose goal is to experience life as anyone's equal, Jane hopes for the best when she takes a job as a governess for a wealthy man's young French ward.

That man would be Edward Rochester, and from the moment he enters the film on his famously stumbling horse, things take a turn for the better.

If the depiction of Jane's younger years veers dangerously close to hysteria, the film gains its footing as Rochester's horse loses his.

As convincingly played by Fassbender, best known so far for roles in British indies "Hunger" and "Fishtank," Rochester is mercurial, bad-tempered and very sure of himself.

And yet, almost as much against his will as against her own, he finds himself appreciating the qualities in Jane that others have ignored or reviled.

Someone who wants distraction from "the mire of my thoughts," Rochester is visibly energized by the spirited give-and-take conversations he has with Jane.

With Fassbender's charisma igniting his co-star as well as himself, these sparring interchanges, both captivating and entertaining, are where this "Jane Eyre" finally catches fire.GO!

Mia Wasikowska stars as the title character in 'Jane Eyre.' (Laurie Sparham/Focus Features)

No one can yet pronounce her name -- nor spell it -- but Mia Wasikowska is clearly ready for her close-up, Mr. DeMille.

The 21-year-old Australian-born actress was supposed to have had her coming-out moment a year ago when she starred in the title role of Tim Burton's misbegotten stab at "Alice in Wonderland." But that film was a flop; and that really turned out to be all for the best for young Ms. Wasikowska. Now, in the title role of the much more promising "Jane Eyre," she has a chance to be a revelation again.

"Jane Eyre," based on the immortal novel by Charlotte Bronte, has been adapted to the screen a staggering 27 times before, but never with Wasikowska, a swan-like presence who lends Bronte's inspiring heroine a hint of contemporary defiance without being all you-go-girl about it.

Wasikowska -- who, you might remember, also played the daughter in last year's hit comedy "The Kids Are Alright" -- is paired with brooding Irish actor Michael Fassbender, who you can sandwich on the handsomeness scale right between Daniel Day Lewis and Gabriel Byrne.

Director Cary Fukunaga -- a UC Santa Cruz alum, we should add -- stays admirably close to the spirit of the Bronte novel, resisting any kind of novelty interpretation, as if he wanted his "Jane Eyre" to be the last and most definitive of the many that went before it.

As a result, Fukunaga's film is exquisitely emotionally calibrated to call forth a single beautiful flower of love out ofAdvertisementthe cold gray hard ground of 19th-century England. Fukunaga is now hearing comparisons to Ang Lee, which might be chalked up as a lazy comparison due to the fact that both are Asian-surnamed directors. But what Fukunaga is doing with "Jane Eyre" is very much what Lee did with Jane Austen's "Sense and Sensibility" in 1995, teasing out a universal theme of enduring love from an outsider's point of view and, as a result, turning an oh-so-English artifact into a totem for everyone.

The new film begins with flashbacks to Jane's miserable childhood, first as a ward of the imperious Mrs. Reed Sally Hawkins, then as a pupil of a charity school called Lowood, where she possessed a distinct personality and was therefore wicked.

Eventually, as an older teen, she finds work as a governess in the household of the rarely seen Mr. Rochester Fassbender, a typically enormous country estate overseen by the competent but kind-hearted Mrs. Fairfax a modest Judi Dench.

Bronte fans, of course, know the rest of the story, how the abandoned young governess becomes the infatuation of the glowering Byronic Rochester, and how the two work to express their mutual high regard for each other. As Rochester, Fassbender is abrupt and scowling, not particularly kind to his social lessers.

But the film's living breathing heart is Jane herself, superbly rendered by Wasikowska who sees Jane's loveless upbringing as the source of the girl's inner strength, and as a result internalizes her determination not only to live a decent life, but to be a decent person.

"Jane Eyre" has always been popular because it portrays love not as a destiny to be embraced with dewy eyes and swelling strings, but as a course of action that often defies the comfortable path and thus takes courage and moral clarity to follow. This new film version, thanks much to its understated performance of its lead actress, holds almost perfectly to that ideal.

Rated: PG-13 for thematic elements including a nude image and brief violent content

Length: One hour, 43 minutes

Cast: Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Judi Dench

Playing at: Century Theatres at the River

Director Cary Joji Fukunaga, fresh from the success of “Sin Nombre,” has changed course with the 19th feature film adaptation of Charlotte Bronte's “Jane Eyre.”

Much like “Sin Nombre,” “Jane Eyre” is ultimately about wanting to belong. Our heroine, Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska from “Alice in Wonderland” and “The Kids Are All Right”), is an orphan looking for her place.

The script by Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) plays with the novel's construction. Instead of a linear narrative from Jane's childhood to her governess job at Thornfield, it starts with a mystery and then spends the next two hours unraveling it.

Wasikowska is not only picture-perfect as our undaunted Jane, she also gets the character's emotional pathos. The first time we see her, she's crying and rushing to leave Thornfield Hall. The tears coming out of her eyes are sorrowful, but one can also see relief. Wasikowska embodies the see-saw of emotion perfectly.

Matching Wasikowska is Michael Fassbender as Mr. Rochester, the master of the house. He initially calls Jane a witch after he blames a horse-riding accident on her. But soon, both are enjoying each other's company.

Completing the cast is Dame Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax, the caretaker of Thornfield Hall. She is also the keeper of the house's secret. Why is Jane hearing strange laughter in the middle of the night? And how will this affect her budding relationship with Mr. Rochester?

At the heart of the novel is a melodramatic fairy tale about an orphan who finds love. But in the able hands of Fukunaga, the melodramatic inklings of the book have been toned down in favor of gothic tone and romance.

The chemistry between Wasikowska and Fassbender is palpable. Fassbender, who will next be seen as the young Magneto in this summer's “X-Men: First Class,” is wonderful as the dashingly mysterious Mr. Rochester.

The cinematography by Adriano Goldman (“City of Men,” “Conviction”) is also commendable. “Jane Eyre” is about relationships; each scene focuses on characters.

Dario Marianelli's (“Eat Pray Love”) original score also adds to the haunting mood of the film.

Bronte's beloved novel may have been told 19 times on the big screen, but this version has a contemporary immediacy that you can't help but fall in love with.

English reboot: Jane Eyre by Jonathan KieferThe latest Jane Eyre gifts new color to the story.

*Jane Eyre (PG-13)

Kimball's Peak Three

You wouldn't be out of line to wonder if it's even possible to get excited for a new movie version of Jane Eyre anymore. Charlotte Brontë's 1847 novel has been adapted into some form of motion picture at least once every decade since 1914.

But only now has it been done by a young director whose previous film concerned train-hopping Hondurans sneaking into America and the Mexican gangsters making an already miserable life even harder for them. So there's that.

For a moment, it was anybody's guess where filmmaker Cary Fukunaga would go after Sin Nombre, his affecting, award-winning 2009 feature debut. Probably nobody would have guessed he'd go headlong into the bonneted world of Brontë. But consider how improbably well Sin Nombre has set it up: In that film, a headstrong, displaced teenaged illegal immigrant falls for a brooding gangster with a dark past; in this one, a headstrong, displaced teenaged orphan governess falls for a brooding lord with a dark past.

From chugging freight trains to huffing horses; weatherbeaten railyards to windswept moors; a goth atmosphere of skeevy gang-initiation rituals to a gothic atmosphere of stuffy English manners. Maybe it really is all just variations on a single archetype. Who knew?

The most important thing to understand about Jane Eyre is that she's quite self-possessed, given the rotten childhood she's endured and the arduous journey that's led her to live and work at the gloomy estate of one Edward Rochester. This fellow, too, might be called self-possessed. As he and Jane talk to each other, most of the time in beautifully lofty language, they find themselves engaged in a mutually invigorating battle of wills.

A romance between them should therefore seem inevitable, but also unlikely; in addition to the differences of age and social status, there is also that one rather important something that he's not telling her. Hint: Is that a voice in her head, or in the attic? And which, exactly, would be worse?

That Jane, said to be plain, and Rochester, said (by Jane) to be ugly, are portrayed respectively by the un-plain Mia Wasikowska and the un-ugly Michael Fassbender shouldn't impugn Fukunaga's fidelity to the book. You can just take it for granted that these two characters have a long movie history of interesting but technically inaccurate casting. What matters most is the rapport between them, and with Wasikowska and Fassbender in the roles, it's electric.

Considering his role in Fish Tank, Fassbender might be settling into that peculiar niche, formerly occupied by Jeremy Irons, of the slender suave Englishman always having on-screen affairs with teenaged girls. Wasikowska for her part is as steady and alert as ever, delivering exactly the right blend of wisdom and vulnerability in Jane's most resonant lines. Having abided Tim Burton's ultimately shrug-worthy Alice in Wonderland, she finally has the classic reboot that she deserves.

The supporting cast includes strategic applications of Judi Dench, Jamie Bell, Sally Hawkins and Simon McBurney. Fukunaga also benefits from his reunion with Sin Nombre cinematographer Adriano Goldman, who again shows a keen eye for the inherent expressionism of natural light, another means by which an old story comes newly to life. By being greater than the sum of its parts, this Jane Eyre should stay fresh — at least until the next one.

Charlotte Brontë's Jane Eyre has been the literary equivalent of a tub of Ben and Jerry's for generations of women: good for combatting heartbreak and mood swings. However, popularity is a cross to bear, and Eyre has had to endure numerous adaptations in a wide range of mediums, some less flattering than others. Up-and-coming director Cary Fukunaga takes on the challenge of creating a standout among all the other interpretations of Brontë's famous heroine, and comes away with notable success.

An early prototype of chick lit, Jane Eyre chronicles the remarkable events in the life of the otherwise ordinary character of Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska). Beset by the after-effects of a wretched childhood, Jane presents herself as a physically unexciting woman with an admirable intellect and an aggressively austere disposition.

When she becomes governess to the ward of Mr. Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender), she learns that in spite of all her shortcomings, she's still found to be attractive. In a manoeuvre that was considered unusually progressive at the time, Brontë's story also delays the consummation of Eyre and Mr. Rochester's romance until both parties have achieved some sort of gender equality.

Coupled with gothic motifs, energetic dialogue, and a dramatic skeleton in the closet, you can hardly blame the industry for wanting to resurrect the novel every few years.

Mia Wasikowska as Eyre is self-contained, yet more expressive than the Janes in some of the novel's previous film adaptations. Fukunaga employs Wasikowska's dance background in his direction, focusing on her body movement as a means to express her silenced emotions. Previous portrayals of Jane have always been timid and weak-looking, whereas Wasikowska embodies Jane with a confidence that is more befitting for such a progressive character.

As per usual, Hollywood finds issue with casting unattractive male leads in a romantic film, even when the role calls for it. But looks aside, Fassbender does a wonderful job of embodying Rochester's idealistic yet flawed personality. Although his sideburns are slightly distracting, they aren't enough to detract from Fassbender's performance.

Rochester is a difficult role to tackle, not just because of the idolatry that surrounds his character, but also because of his volatility. In the novel, Rochester is haughty and condescending, and Fassbender fluidly embodies all aspects of the role.

While Wasikowska and Fassbender have the benefit of a natural chemistry, the build-up of passions between the two lovers seems rushed at times, as if the destination was more important than the journey. One of the problems with adapting Jane Eyre is that much of the action takes place within Jane's thoughts, which tends to get lost when you translate the script into a more active medium.

Fukunaga's Victorian universe is a welcome deviation, using minimalist lines and bright, overexposed shots to create a clean Puritan look. Both the houses and gardens are sparsely furnished, and open areas lend a feeling of spaciousness. Unlike the gloomy and cluttered designs of previous Eyre adaptations, Fukunaga achieves a gothic look with starkness.

It's also interesting to note that while Fukunaga has stated his intention to draw out the gothic horror elements in Jane Eyre, this is only obvious in the cinematic trailer. The final product belies a more romantic influence, but this certainly doesn't diminish the overall potency of the film.

Fukunaga proves his mettle by challenging the long tradition of Jane Eyre adaptations and producing a cinematic offering that does justice to the passionate romance between Jane and her master. As Jane would say: viewer, I liked it.

Jane EyreThe latest <em>Jane Eyre</em> is just a little more passion away from being super powerful.

By Marjorie Baumgarten

Thursday, March 31, 2011

Jane Eyre, one of cinema’s most frequently filmed novels, is once again on our screens in a handsomely mounted new version.

That Charlotte Brontë’s Gothic novel, which was published in 1847, has seen so many incarnations is a testament to her story’s enduring power to speak across generations and eras. The character of Jane Eyre, with her proto-feminist longings and strong moral center, and the love she shares with Edward Rochester, her employer and a classic Byronic hero, serve as bellwethers that beckon modern storytellers again and again.

This new screenplay adaptation by Moira Buffini (who also adapted Tamara Drewe from Posy Simmonds’ graphic novel) is reasonably faithful to Brontë’s 38-chapter novel, and director Cary Fukunaga in his sophomore feature (Sin Nombre) displays a firm visual hand and expressionistic mastery of re-creating the look of 19th century lighting modes. Even those famed foggy moors have a palpable look that’s capable of enveloping our heroine and her viewers within its murkiness.

The only aspect of Fukunaga’s Jane Eyre that is not fully palpable, however, is the passion that passes between the governess and her master. Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender are both splendid as Jane and Edward (and if you detect a whiff of intentional appeal to Team Edward tweeners in this remake of a classic work of literature, you’re probably on target). Wasikowska has the “plain Jane” look down pat, and she easily exudes the kind of intelligence and naturalism that made her work in two of last years’ films – Alice in Wonderland and The Kids Are All Right – so exceptional. Fassbender, too, is a major talent, whom most will recognize from his work in Inglourious Basterds (but those who want to check out the full extent of his controlled brilliance should seek out his performances in Hunger and Fish Tank). Despite individually excellent turns, though, there is little spark, hunger or lust that ignites between the two separated-by-circumstance lovers.

Buffini’s screenplay also makes little of the class differences that separate the pair, although to its credit, the screenplay includes many episodes from Jane Eyre’s childhood, distinguishing it from most other renditions that begin with her employment at Mr. Rochester’s Thornfield Hall. As the mansion’s housekeeper, Mrs. Fairfax, Judi Dench is a thorough delight as she upholds the difficult line between discretion and compassion.

Although Jane Eyre wants for the depth of passion and heat we might expect from this Gothic couple who feel united in their souls, this film can boast a wealth of attention given to other visual and narrative details. Perhaps every decade gets the Jane Eyre it deserves: Is the emphasis of conscience over passion emblematic of our times?

I want to preface this review with the fact that I have never read Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre and I knew nearly nothing of the plot before attending a showing of director Cary Joji Fukunaga's latest version of Jane Eyre for the big screen. Lucky me. Going into Jane Eyre completely unaware allowed for a thrilling, organic experience; the plot unraveled before my eyes, the dialogue was fresh and sharp, and the mystery remained just that until the climactic finale. Which is why I would suggest to any and all who have never read of (or cared about) the story of Jane Eyre to let this film be their first exposure. It's worth every penny.

The plot follows the life of a plain-looking girl named Jane Eyre (played by Mia Wasikowska) whose miserable childhood sees her cast out by an aunt and abused in a strict boarding school before landing at Thornfield Hall, an estate where she is to be a governess. There Jane bewitches the handsome master of the household, Rochester (the brooding Michael Fassbender) but the more he falls in love with the young woman the more Jane is spooked by the strange occurrences in the mansion. Without giving too much away, Jane is awoken several nights to the sounds of a figure wandering the halls, horrifying screams, an attack on a Thornfield guest, and much more. Fukunaga's Jane Eyre traps its Gothic romance in a haunted house and the result is both thrilling and nerve-racking.

Screenwriter Moira Buffini's incredible adaptation restructures the narrative of Bronte's piece, whisking together a mixed chronology that only enhances the film's suspense. The movie opens on the titular Jane desperately running away – but from where we can't be sure. A voice shouts out her name, the echo of which hangs frozen in the air. Cinematographer Adriano Goldman shoots Jane on the bleak landscape of dead grass and grey skies; as the young girl flees she's belittled by the rolling hills, nothing more than a speck, that is until Dario Marianelli's somber score rushes like a cold wind, sweeping the audience into Jane's journey. We're going with her.

After spooking Rochester's horse on the road to Thornfield Hall, Jane must accompany her injured employer for a fireside chat. Rochester asks his governess to divulge her 'tale of woe' – the grim details of her destitute and unprivileged life – but Ms. Eyre won't say a word. Jane is a fiercely independent woman who refuses to allow the abuses and subordinations of her childhood to define her. Rochester smirks, intrigued; no tale of woe can stay hidden forever. The moment lingers – a revealing anecdote that links the two very separate parts of this story: mystery and romance.

Though many have played Jane Eyre in countless film adaptations before her, Mia Wasikowska's portrayal of the deprived yet passionate governess is entirely engrossing. She's physically timid but has the strength of wit that challenges the guarded Mr. Rochester, played as curt and near sinister by Michael Fassbender. The pair verbally spar with delectable dialogue that Buffini has converted from Bronte's book; don't let the Victorian-era intimidate you – the script is as sharp and easy to understand as anything well written today. Fassbender is coarse and impudent while Wasikowska is steadfast and refined. In fact, I might say that my only complaint is that I wished Wasikowska's Jane wasn't quite so subtle with her longing of Rochester; at times it seems as if his love will remain unrequited. She does, however, float through the domineering halls of Thornfield white as a ghost, petrified yet curious enough to maintain the audience's attention. Fassbender captivates throughout, his allure masking the dark secrets of his estate for nearly the entire film.

A few other noteworthy actors give strong performances in Fukunaga's bleak and tempestuous Jane Eyre: Dame Judi Dench is Mrs. Fairfax, the benevolent keeper of Thornfield Hall, while Jamie Bell appears as St. John Rivers, a young minister who gives Jane shelter during her desperate need. Others to leave their mark on the film include Sally Hawkins as Jane's wretched aunt and Simon McBurney as the self-righteous head of Lowood Institution.

I'm approaching this latest incarnation of Bronte's beloved novel from the unique perspective of having never read the classic literature favorite nor seen any previous versions. I am not able to comment on the degree to which Fukunaga's version is true (though I hear it's a particularly accurate rendition) but in the end, I don't think that matters. This Jane Eyre can speak for itself, presenting a dichotomous 'tale of woes' to completely fresh eyes. I was fascinated by the love affair of two intellectual equals whose desires challenge the social norms of the period, and I was enthralled by what lay hidden behind the tapestry (you'll see what I mean.) It's a difficult task to make the hearts of your audience race both in rapture and suspense, but the stark moodiness of Fukunaga's Jane Eyre succeeds on each count.

More than a few readers have likely read the novel Jane Eyre in school or for pleasure, but film adaptations of the book are hit-and-miss. As a result, I wasn't expecting much of this horror/prestige hybrid telling of the now-classic story of love between the titular Jane and Mr. Rochester. Imagine my surprise when I found myself charmed and fully riveted by this version starring the gorgeous Mia Wasikowska and the drop dead beautiful/talented Michael Fassbender.

The choices made by director Cary Fukunaga are effective ones, from the in media res story structure to the twinges of terror that keep the audience on their toes. The writing is an effective adaptation, though the language sometimes flies over the audience's heads. Large blocks of dialogue are slightly muddled when the actors (Wasikowska specifically) don't deliver them with any real understanding or punch. (One of the reasons True Grit worked so well was because young star Hailee Steinfeld had a dexterity with the wordy dialogue.)

However, the film more than overcomes its shortcomings. It's a captivating tale told with aplomb. The art direction and costume design are particular highlights--look for one or both to be recognized come next year at the Academy Awards. The supporting cast was absolutely phenomenal, from the understated Judi Dench to the fabulously bitchy Sally Hawkins, who I have officially thrown my allegiance behind (all it takes is one bitchy performance...right, Winona Ryder?)

The entire film is effective in ways you'd never expect. Truly a pleasure to watch, if not as effortless as it could have been. You can see the cracks, but you happily ignore them. B+Awkwardly posted by Kevin at 12:03 AM

Charlotte Brontë's well-known governess comes to the big screen once again in a new film adaptation. Hoping to leave memories of her unhappy childhood behind, Jane (Mia Wasikowska) thinks she has found love when she begins to have feelings for her new employer (Michael Fassbender)…until she discovers he has a secret.

I have a certain respect for a moviemaker who dares to make yet another version of a novel that has already been put to celluloid many times. I can’t find a complete count, but it’s safe to say the story’s famous line would be better voiced, "Viewer, I married him."

Yet director Cary Fukunaga, with relatively few titles in his portfolio, has not only managed to refresh this 19th Century novel, but has created a film that aptly carries itself from middle, to beginning to end. Yes, starting from the middle where Jane (Mia Wasikowska) arrives at the Rivers’ home (for those of you who are familiar with the book) shifts the focus and allows the production to cut far more rapidly to the love story. Flashbacks still fill in the necessary details of Jane’s tortured childhood (we see her and another girl paddled and caned) and her eventual "graduation" from an orphanage. These sequences also show her employment at Thornfield Hall as a governess to Adele Varens (Romy Settbon Moore), who is the charge of the mansion’s usually absent owner, Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender).

The script skips along quickly until the fateful moment when Jane, apparently hard of hearing, doesn’t notice a horse approaching at full gallop. Perhaps one of the more renowned romantic meetings, the arrogant (and as yet not introduced) Rochester hits the ground and must rely on little Jane to assist with reseating him on his mount. From this point the plot slows, allowing us a few moments to linger and perhaps wonder why sweet Jane would be so forgiving of her gruff boss. After all, he is a man she describes as ugly, who teases her with a visit from another woman of interest, and has more than a skeleton in his closet.

Families looking for an opportunity to interest kids in classic literature should be pleased with this choice. Content concerns are relatively minor considering the MPAA’s (Motion Picture Association of America) award of a PG-13 rating. Young viewers may find Jane’s treatment at the orphanage troubling, especially at the hand of a religious figure. In a later scene a bloody wound is shown in detail. And then there’s the mentally ill character that has an affinity for arson. Finally, for those wondering about the "nude image" mentioned in the MPAA’s rating descriptor, it refers to a fascination young Jane has for a painting of a reclining nude woman (the work of art is seen in close-up).

Perhaps the most compelling aspect of this film is Mia Wasikowska’s performance and style. Presented as Plain Jane to perfection, she drives home many of her scenes with sublime confidence. Added to that is the interesting English scenery (and there’s a lot of it to enjoy here). However, unless your kids have a particular penchant for this genre, this quiet tale may send them running—especially once they sense there is love in the Eyre.

Violence: Young girls in a 19th Century orphanage are paddled, caned and verbally abused while under supervision by a man with religious authority. Portrayals of bullying. A young boy hits a young girl with a book, causing her face to bleed. A child is unjustly chastised by her aunt. A bloody wound is briefly seen in detail. A man falls from a horse and is mildly injured. A woman suffering from insanity is kept in a locked room. Verbal references to suicide are made. Characters are threatened by fire.

Sexual Content: A classical painting of a nude female is shown. A man attempts to commit bigamy. A couple exchanges some passionate kisses.

Language: Name-calling.

Drugs/Alcohol: Cigar smoking is shown on a few occasions. Social drinking and the medicinal use of alcohol is depicted.

Discussion Ideas: Talk About the Movie...

What do you see as Jane’s motivations for falling in love with Mr. Rochester? Does he deserve her forgiveness? Would the situation be different if it took place in the present?

How does starting the narrative in the middle of the story change the focus of the plot? Do you like this creative decision?

Video alternatives

Another famous, female author has also had her life and works made into film. Becoming Jane stars Anne Hathaway as a young Jane Austen. Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejudice, and Mansfield Park are movie adaptations of Austen’s novels. The Jane Austen Book Club brings together a group of readers who find solace and advice in the author’s writings.

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the Jane Eyre-iest of them all? There have been so many. Could it be the latest film adaptation starring Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Jamie Bell and Dame Judi Dench? Haven't seen it yet but it looks really good. Check out the Jane Eyre clip and trailer to see what I mean.

Thursday, March 31, 2011Jane Eyre: A Review (Updated!)So I saw Jane Eyre tonight (starring Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender, directed by Cary Fukunaga) and first things first: this post contains SPOILERS! Of course, if you've read the novel at all, these aren't "spoilers" in terms of plot, but rather what Fukunaga and adaptation writer Moira Buffini have done with it.

I was eager to see this interpretation of Charlotte Bronte's classic because 1) I realized I had never watched a visual version of Jane Eyre (movie or mini-series -- nothing), and 2) Jane Eyre is the first Victorian novel I discovered and loved. People may call me an Austenite, but Jane Eyre was my first.

I came out of the theater dry-eyed and disappointed. While some people near me (in the nearly empty theater) were sniffling during some of the emotional scenes, crying along with the characters, I did not. Of course, that may have more to do with me than anything with the movie. But I was disappointed, and I will tell you why. But first, the good stuff!

Fukunaga, Buffini, and cinematographer Adriano Goldman have, through many wobbly, transient shots of Jane (and Rochester, too, but mostly Jane) and her surroundings, captured the dark, Gothic, and uncertain nature of the English moors -- a necessary element in any Bronte novel and any adaptation thereof. It is dark. It is cold. It is windy. It is fleeting, indistinct, and precarious, by turns "dark scary forest" and beautiful Spring garden in bloom. Well done, lady and gentlemen.

The story is also told in a series of flashbacks that work surprisingly well. The novel, of course, is told in linear fashion, in first person, with a lot of Jane addressing the reader directly. The most obvious film device for this would be voiceover narration, but that is not used. Instead, we see glimpses of Jane's childhood, et cetera, through flashback. I would contend that the flashbacks and then the "present tense" of being with the Rivers family goes on a little too long; I'm sure other readers of the novel were silently asking, like me, "When do we get to Rochester??"

Thirdly: Mia Wasikowska and the fact that she looks like she's fourteen. I was intrigued by the previews of this film because everyone looked so young. However, after watching, I think screenwriter (and whomever the casting director was) stayed true to Bronte since Jane is only supposed be nineteen or twenty. This is how things were "back then." People were thrust into the world to make their way at a much younger age. And somehow Michael Fassbender still looked older and more "worn" than she did. It worked.

Now for the not-so-good stuff. Several key elements -- in terms of character development -- were left out of the film, things that I think are integral to our understanding of Jane and how she views the world. Those things are:

The first one is the one that bothers me the most, and here's why. Lowood wasn't entirely devoid of affection and care for Jane. And while Helen Burns (who is featured) greatly affects Jane's spirituality and sense of forgiveness, it is Miss Temple who gives her her education. It is Miss Temple who encourages Jane to become a teacher in return (thereby making her fit to be a governess in the first place). It is Jane's education (and I've stated in a previous, however poorly written, paper) that keeps her from a fate of religious fanaticism (like Maggie Tullier in George Eliot's Mill on the Floss) or false religious estheticism (like Dorethea Brooke in Eliot's Middlemarch). Jane has a fine intellect and a desire to DO something with her life, and the only option for her, as a woman, is as a teacher and governess. It is her education which inspires her to be useful "like a man" and to have an occupation. It is her education which solidifies her sense of independence and sense of self; without those latter two things, she never would have been able to leave Rochester after the discovery of Bertha Mason. Leaving out Miss Temple seems to be a grave travesty to Jane's character and development as a person. In fact, the film does not explicitly say that Jane was even a teacher at Lowood School. Those of us who have read the novel can make that assumption based on what is shown, but the uninitiated may never make that connection.

Concerning Adele: I may have missed it, but I don't believe Rochester ever makes the statement to Jane that Adele's mother told Rochester that he had fathered Adele (before dying and passing Adele off to Rochester). (In his defense, even Rochester can't be sure of what Mama Adele says; she had many men.) Again, those of us who have read the book know this assumption, and Rochester's brief quip of "Yes, and that's how she charmed my English gold out of my English pocket" to Adele is all we need. But unless Fukunaga and Buffini are assuming everyone and their dog has read Jane Eyre, I think it is something important to know because 1) it says a LOT about Rochester, his past, and his character (and flaws therein), and 2) it says a great deal about Jane's love for and faith in him when realizing everything that she's accepting when she accepts him, first as a friend, then later as what -- a lover? A husband? Again, the film does not give us the definitive ending of marriage and child; it must be assumed by the embrace and the fact that we know Jane would not stay with him when she knew he was married.

No Bling for Jane: I could not quite understand what Mia-as-Jane said when looking over the wedding dress and veil that arrives in a box for her, but as I recall in the novel it's a fairly big deal (and every feminist critic and her dog has written about it) that Rochester tries to gussy her up with rich things. And that she refuses them. She eventually consents to wear a veil of better-than-average material, but she refuses the family jewels (make your own jokes) and rich dresses he throws at her. This Jane does wear the dress and veil and bonnet, and looks gorgeous and virginal doing so. But it is a testament to both Jane's character and Rochester's that she refuse him. She is trying to retain her independent self amidst his loving bullying, and his "bullying" is evidence that he is not worthy of her yet; he is not ready to marry her, Bertha or no Bertha.

And speaking of Bertha...Their Bertha did not look all that scary. Did she look bat-s$#! crazy? Absolutely, but more in a Helena-Bonham-Carter-as-Bellatrix-Lestrange kind of way, than anything swarthy and swollen and red-eyed that Bronte describes in the novel. Bertha also does not appear in Jane's room late at night (maybe it was just a bad dream?) and rip the aforementioned veil the night before the wedding. The director does such a good job of starting to set up Bertha's introduction; some actual suspenseful, truly Gothic moments happen, enough to make even Catherine Mooreland (of Northanger Abbey fame) happy. So why did he leave out this one?? I can pinpoint exactly what I was doing when I first read this scene because it scared the s$#! out of me. Curse you, Fukunaga and Buffini, for leaving it out! It especially would have been nice to see what the actress portraying Bertha would have done with more screen time.

Rochester the cross-dresser: So maybe not so integral to character development, but for all his brooding (and Fassbender-as-Rochester does brood A LOT), it would have been interesting to see how they would have approached this bit of whimsy. The gypsy bit also explains why it is not hard to get rid of Blanche Ingram, but the Ingram issue is never really discussed here.

While I realize that there is not room for EVERYthing in a screenplay, this film is well under two hours long. I think there was plenty of room for some of these important elements, and maybe fewer wobbly shots of Jane running through the forest and across the moors. They did retain one of my favorite lines (the bit about a "string" under Rochester's "left ribs" connecting him to Jane). I tried to remember what my favorite Jane lines were, but I came up empty-handed. Much of Jane's dialogue in the novel is directed at the reader; in actual action she says a lot of "Yes, sir" and the like. Although Rochester does get a bit of comeuppance when she has a speech about being "plain and little" (I won't give it ALL away here).

Update Insert Here: I forgot to give a shout-out to Dame Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax! She, as usual, has some fantastic facial expressions which say all that needs to be said without uttering a line of dialogue. And some of her lines are very brief ("How very French") but her timing, as usual, is dead on. I heart her.

So there you have it: why I was disappointed with this production of Jane Eyre. Lastly, here's Fry and Laurie to tell your their reasons:Posted by KittyKnits at 11:34 PM

1. I haven't read the book because I'm not a girl (j/k!). I read Jean Rhys' Wide Sargasso Sea instead of Jane Eyre because presently American universities are overrun with post-colonialists (not j/k!). Nor had I seen any film adaptations (though now I kind of need to see Orson Welles go ham as Rochester). But what I enjoy about Jane Eyre, and seemingly all British classics, is that they're stories of captivity. Come to terms with it or die trying to escape.

2. Charlotte Bronte's language is delightful. My favorite lines regard Jane's drawings, her "accomplishments," of which she says, "I'll save them until they're wanted." Ah, to believe that. And how could I have lived this long without hearing the heartbreaking way Jane asks of Rochester's proposal, "are you mocking me?"

3. There's a nice physicality to the piece, beginning with the way young Jane is whacked across the face with a heavy volume on birds. That's literature as I like it: concussive.

Three helpings of praise for the lead actors:

1. My crush on Michael Fassbender is well-documented. In Jane Eyre, he has to hold back on his smolder a bit. To emphasize the fact that he's supposed to be a somewhat ugly, director Cary Fukunaga's camera backs away and Rochester recedes into dark corners. Though I was able to purr a bit at the cuddly red brocade robe he wore when locking his wife back up in the attic.

2. I've missed the films that have brought Mia Wasikowska to this stage but she's good as Jane. The series of poorly fitted dresses that droop around her shoulders help accentuate the sturdy neck into which her chin is often pointed. Wasikowska's best moments come when Jane checks herself for a moment before saying something really vicious. The scornful looks shot over teacup brims from her brown eyes are savory indeed.

3. Fassbender and Wasikowska together are able to remain coltish while falling for each other. "All governesses have a tale of woe," and "beauty is of no consequence," and "you transfix me quite," etc, etc. I got all the way to the end of the film wondering if they might hate each other just as easily as love each other. So the actors accomplished their main objective.

Three unfortunately curtailed sequences in Jane Eyre:

1. As a filmgoer, I like to linger but Fukunaga seemed to lack the trust to hold shots long enough. Right from the start he sets the camera casting after Jane as she flees over the moors. Just as I was starting to enjoy the way her blue and grey plaid matched the rain and rock, she's whisked away to safety. Fukunaga doesn't have to be Reygadas but I'd encourage him to move more deliberately through his set pieces.

2. At the height of Rochester and Jane's romance, the film moves outside on a day with a bit of actual sunlight. It's a sequence reminiscent of Pocahontas out of pocket amidst the topiary in The New World but without Malick's intuitive brilliance. Fukunaga has the lyricism but not the poetry.

3. After Jane leaves Thornfield and settles into even greater isolation, there's shot of her one room schoolhouse being snowed under. How sad that it lasts about three seconds--the mounting powder could have worked as the best symbol in the whole film. It's a wild, wild shot but gone before you can really see it.

Three reasons to be hopeful for the career of Cary Fukunaga:

1. He's excellent in the small details. After we see Bertha Mason locked in her attic framed with thick cobwebs, there's a quick cut to Jane rapidly unraveling the ties to the dress she wore for her aborted wedding. I also admire an earlier shot where a young girl's hair caught is incidentally caught in a bouquet of flowers--it helps underline the naturalism of this retelling.

2. Fukunaga gives a rack focusing master course for the sequence when Rochester throws a party for his rich neighbors and forces Jane to sit with them. Thanks to busy lensing, the two classes are never seen in focus at the same time. Jane is forever separate and we practically hear her resentment hissing.

3. I don't know many non-horror films with such an emphasis on the skin of its characters. Exploring some black passage of Thornfield, Jane comes across a portrait of a nude figure and brings her candle all the way up to the oil, showing darker layers of paint under the pink outer flesh. Especially in shots of Judi Dench and Fassbender by the hearth, the flickering light plays on their sallowness in a most unflattering way. Fukunaga thoroughly examines even the porcelain countenance of Jane, ready to expose any flaw.Posted by kirk michael at 9:33 PM

Soon after the fevered opening of this latest “Jane Eyre,” the far-off figure of the heroine, unmoored on the moors, stands at a crossroads that is hardly more than a crosspaths—four corners faintly traced in one of the film’s many understated yet transfixing vistas. Almost everything about Cary Fukunaga’s version of the Charlotte Brontë romance is understated yet transfixing, mainly—although far from exclusively—because of Mia Wasikowska’s presence in the title role. She embodies Jane’s most endearing qualities—courage, passion, devotion, unadorned beauty—but not for a moment the moist poignance that many of the umpteen previous versions have inflicted on her. (Eighteen feature films, to be exact, and nine TV versions.) This Jane meets the world and everyone in it with a rock-solid sense of herself that can only be shaken by love.

Ms. Wasikowska works with economical purity within the novel’s 19th-century English setting. Jane’s personal power seems entirely her own, rather than some anachronistic notion of self-empowerment. That’s particularly stirring in a crucial moment of self-assertion—”Am I a machine without feelings?” she begins—with Michael Fassbender’s forbiddingly handsome Rochester. And it’s all the more impressive in light of the young Australian star’s charmingly modern portrayal of an American teenage daughter in “The Kids Are All Right.”

Does ‘Jane Eyre’ Do Justice to the Book?

But then the work of Mr. Fukunaga—who directed from a strong adaptation by Moira Buffini—is impressive too. He made his directorial debut two years ago with “Sin Nombre,” a dramatically commanding and visually expansive account, in Spanish, of impoverished immigrants riding atop freight trains as they lumber through Mexico toward the U.S. border. That was a singular choice for the California-born son of a Swedish-American mother and a Japanese-American father, though maybe not such a strange one, given his rich family heritage. Choosing a remake of the oft-made Brontë classic did seem odd on the face of it, and more than a little worrisome for those of us who cherished “Sin Nombre” and wished him only the best. As it turns out, there was no need to worry. With these two productions, each distinct from the other though connected by impeccable craftsmanship, Mr. Fukunaga has arrived as a self-effacing master of his medium.

He and Ms. Buffini have heightened the drama of their source material in two ways, both successful. They’ve rearranged the narrative by starting with Jane’s heartsick flight from Thornfield Hall, by spending useful time on her usually scanted encounter with St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell) and his family, and by playing, as powerful flashbacks, her harsh childhood as an orphan as well as her time as a governess at Thornfield. The film also has somber fun with Thornfield as a haunted house of alarming sounds and squeaking timbers.

The heart of the story remains Jane’s anguished love for Rochester, and that heart beats strongly, even though this “Jane Eyre” moves at a pace some may find slow: I found it perfectly measured. Mr. Fassbender’s lord of the cursed manor is worthy of his governess’s love, even though he’s no match for the one played by Timothy Dalton when it comes to bottomless despair or towering rage, and though he can’t, or wisely won’t, touch the doomy self-regard that Orson Welles brought to the role. Instead of a black hole taking energy in, he’s a pulsar pumping it out in the form of pain relieved, at least for a while, by wry humor and an openness to Jane’s beauty. Judi Dench, as Rochester’s housekeeper, Mrs. Fairfax, dispenses gentle humor unburdened by pain, though enriched by maturity and kindness. Will Hughes-Jones designed the production. Michael O’Connor did the marvelous costumes.

When I wrote about “Sin Nombre,” which was shot with graphic grandeur by the Brazilian cinematographer Adriano Goldman, I called the use of 35mm film cameras instead of digital equipment a crucial aesthetic choice. That’s equally true of “Jane Eyre,” which was shot by Mr. Goldman with equal virtuosity, though in a very different visual style. His technique is painterly in its evocation of 19th century English artists. Beyond that, it’s distinguished by an abundance of tonal variety: interiors that seem to take on the smell of weathered furniture; softly modeled closeups that cast Jane as a country madonna; candlelit scenes that recall the magical warmth of “Barry Lyndon.”

To prove that I didn’t embrace “Jane Eyre” uncritically, I’ll note that pulses were taken in the 19th century by checking the wrist, not the carotid artery as shown here, and I’ll register an objection to the use of surround sound to create squeaking timbers at the back of the theater. This lovely film surrounds us without it.

Throughout time there have been many variations of classic stories. Some of those stories are told with a different perspective, while others remain true to the stories’ origins. What makes a story last is exactly that, it can be told in so many different ways. “ Jane Eyre” is one of those classic tales. The novel was written in the late 1700’s by Charlotte Bronte and has been retold many times since then. In the 2011 version, we find that screenwriter Moira Buffini stays true to the classic tale the way it was originally told. Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska) is left to live with her aunt and cousins by her uncle’s death. Jane though, is not wanted and is treated like a servant by everyone in the house. One day Jane is sent to attend Lowood School for girls after being accused of being deceitful. While she is at the school, she is shamed by the head- master in front of the whole student body and labeled a liar. After eight years, Jane leaves Lowood and becomes a governess at Thornfield Hall, where she meets Mrs. Fairfax (Judi Dench), the housekeeper. While at Thornfield Hall, Jane cares for a young French girl named Adele Varens ( Romy Settbon Moore). One day while Jane is out walking, she comes upon a man on a horse and is accused of bewitching the horse as it throws the man off. Jane returns to Thornfield and discovers that the man is Rochester (Michael Fassbender), the owner of Thornfield and her employer. Rochester is bewitched by Jane, but not by her beauty, but by her spirit and talents that she possesses. Jane is told to speak to Rochester as if they are equals and she is often sought out for conversations. Jane has never really been around a man and falls for Rochester and his charm. She also believes that Rochester loves her as well and is ready for him when he asks for her hand in marriage. Jane is preparing for her wedding when she is informed that they cannot marry for Rochester already has a wife and keeps her locked up at Thornfield. Rochester tells Jane that he was tricked into marrying and that his wife is crazy. Jane decides to leave in the middle of the night and is close to death when she comes upon the Rivers’ home. There she meets St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell) who gives her a place to live and a job as well. Jane is content with her life but runs away after John Rivers professes his love and his intent to claim her for his own. Jane moves on but longs to be reunited with her love, Rochester. “Jane Eyre” is a classic and enduring story that many considered ahead of its time when it was published. The characters often bring out great performances by the actors who portray them. Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender have great chemistry together, a chemistry that you can feel through-out the film. Director Cary Fukunaga does what the story calls for, which is let the actors tell the story. “ Jane Eyre” has been told many times and will be told many more times, but this version is one that will stand up with the best of them.

Thursday, March 31, 2011Opposite ends of the spectrum: "Jane Eyre" and "Sucker Punch"After several failed attempts to make it to the theater (please stay in Boston one more week, Of Gods and Men, I'm on my way), I managed to sneak in two viewings, and they were different, to put it mildly. One was an adaptation of a classic novel, and the other quickly revealed itself to be the wet dream of a 13 year-old anime/video game love trapped in a man's (and director's) body.

**I've also fallen woefully behind on the 30 Day Movie Challenge. Expect a massive catch-up post by the end of the week.

Jane Eyre - dir. Cary Fukunaga:

A brief disclaimer: I haven't yet read Bronte's classic novel. However, whether or not Fukunaga's film (from Moira Buffini's script) is faithful or not, the director's second film is a moody success, if a bit on the minor side. Opening somewhere in the middle of the story, we meet Jane (Mia Wasikowska) straggling across an empty, rainy English landscape. And from these opening moments, Fukunaga establishes his "bold new vision" (quoth the trailer) of Bronte's classic, and it really works. The first shot of Jane is practically a silhouette, appropriate considering how much of the color is infused in the sets and costumes. Fukunaga's film is sparse and generally un-romanticized, yet feels complete and quietly captivating.

And even though it's obvious that some sections of the novel have been trimmed or cut altogether, there's a steady, constantly engaging feeling that arises from the unhurried pace. Key to all of this, of course, is Ms. Eyre herself. Having successfully launched herself into the American conscience in Tim Burton's Eyesore in Wonderland 3D, Ms. Wasikowska is actually able to show off her capabilities as a leading lady here, and she does so with understated skill. I can't speak to whether or not she lives up to previous cinematic Jane Eyres, but she's certainly a damn good one, and her ability to communicate so much in the nuances of her performance, rather than through histrionics, is one of the film's greatest strengths. Matching her is Michael Fassbender as the conflicted Rochester, with whom Ms. Wasikowska has surprising chemistry. A conversation after Jane saves Rochester from small fire in his room, shot almost entirely in shadows, achieves a spectacular level of intrigue and hinted romance that is darker and sexier than anything Megan Fox (or her interchangeable counterparts) has ever done on screen.

Fukunaga's film also benefits from a roster of smaller roles (Jamie Bell, Sally Hawkins, Judi Dench), striking cinematography, and a delicate and dark score from Dario Marianelli (Pride and Prejudice, Atonement). However, despite its strengths, there are a few unfortunate missteps that even someone who hasn't read the book will be able to see. While Fukunaga's choice to open in the middle of the story works, when he returns to that point in the story, he lingers for too long, repeating too much footage as if he wanted to reach a specified run time by any means necessary. And in trimming down Bronte's work, certain scenes and character developments come across as too quick. When Mrs. Fairfax (Dench) mentions that Jane has been working at Rochester's mansion for three months, the revelation comes as surprise, as there's nothing resembling a transition to give us a feel for the passage of time. Similar events populate the rest of the film, to minor detriment. Yet while it isn't a masterpiece, or the new definitive silver screen "Jane Eyre," Fukunaga's second film establishes him as a diverse and daring director, one whose strengths far outweigh his shortcomings.

It’s been so long since I’ve read Charlotte Brontë’s 1847 novel that I have no idea how closely this film follows it. I do know that it works very well as what it is: a masochistic wish-fulfillment romance with gothic elements. It is visually sensuous and intimate, which is appropriate in a romance. I suppose I could have used a little more gothic, but I liked what was offered. Rochester’s estate is a great pile of stone, and it is suitably dark and chilly. There’s one lovely scene where Jane’s face fades in and out of darkness as Rochester tries to light a fire. Jane’s face becomes the flame.

The success of a romance depends a great deal on the two leads, and it’s actually a little hard for me to judge how well they spark off each other here. I really liked Mia Wasikowska as Jane. She carries the movie with a combination of true grit and vulnerability. Michael Fassbender as Rochester played wounded — soul and pride — very well, although perhaps lacked an air of cruelty. Yet the story is so basic and strong, with such powerful cruxes, that quibbles seem beside the point. The performances almost seemed beside the point. The atmosphere and sense of unspoken, restrained emotions roiling against the pile of stone was enough for me.

The class aspects of the story are curious, and I’m not sure I actually understand what Jane’s class is. Did she come from money but was dispossessed by her aunt? In the end it feels that Rochester has been reduced and Jane restored, but is that a fairy tale or actual economics? And Rochester still has a housekeeper, so all he really needs is a house.

Was Judi Dench as the housekeeper a bit under-used? But I’m quibbling again. Mia Wasikowska holds the stage. All the moor’s a stage. It feels like a dream, and the film knows it. I probably prefer dreams to swoons anyway.

Until recently I was of the mind that a film version of a novel can do nothing more than simply represent as accurately as possible the text of a story, leaving the words of my favorite authors unadulterated.

This is particularly the case for my most beloved novel, "Jane Eyre." Though the poster of Franco Zefferelli's 1996 version starring Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt hangs over my bed, I have never yet found a Jane and Rochester pairing that makes me swoon to the extent that Charlotte Brontë's own words on the page do.

While Fukunaga claimed in an interview, "We definitely featured the Gothic elements of the story more," I found the opposite to be true, as elements of the Gothic seemed downplayed throughout the film.

Unlike in Brontë's own text, climactic scenes between Jane and Rochester seemed swathed in light, occasionally marred by light rain but not threatened by the impending night and storms readers have come to expect.

From the start, Fukunaga's cinematic approach to the story strays from expectation, not progressing chronologically but beginning far beyond the halfway point of the novel. It opens with Jane's flight from Rochester's manor and continues to alternate between flashback and flash-forward until Jane goes to Thornfield Hall to become governess to Rochester's ward, Adèle.

Initially, it seems as if such non-linear storytelling adds to a sort of feminist reading of Jane's character, a strong young woman who runs away from Rochester after — well, after something bad happens.

In Fukugana's telling, we know this before the credits roll. What we don't know is what leads up to it, so instead we see Jane, in her past and in her — sort-of — present, as a victim of circumstance and, really, a woman who simply cannot provide for herself.

Fassbender's snarky Rochester makes a delightful counterpart to Wasikowska's meek Jane, which is perhaps one of the delights of the film. Though not quite brooding enough for a true Brontë hero, Fassbender portrays a less sinister Rochester whose attachment to Jane almost seems to begin as a lighthearted rake's easy conquest of his inexperienced governess.

For every interesting move Fukunaga makes, he leaves something out. He teases the audience with bits of plot that are never fully actualized. This is especially the case with the introduction of Blanche Ingram, Jane's romantic rival. Blanche comes and goes, but we know all along that Rochester is really after Jane.

We can never be convinced of Jane's jealousy, only her resignation. She is left a puppet under Rochester's control, rendering her famous, impassioned speech — though brilliantly acted by Wasikowska — out of place and almost uncharacteristic.

Ultimately, though, it was Fukunaga's decision to downplay the Gothic elements of the story that disappointed me most. Coming out of the theater, I couldn't put into words how I really felt about the film for that very reason. I first thought it was a fascinating concept, focusing on the human aspect of the story.

But then I saw an interview in which Fukunaga said he wanted to emphasize the Gothic. My impressions of the film were shattered. How can a version of my favorite novel that leaves out the night before Jane and Rochester's wedding, Jane's weird dreams and even weirder paintings, Grace Poole, the gypsy and so many other crucial elements be said to feature elements of the Gothic?

I wanted to see Fukunaga's film as a new and different interpretation of one of my favorite novels, an interpretation that I might not be able to put precisely into words but that did something unique with the text.

Instead I'm finding the only conclusion I can make is that Fukunaga tried to do too many things in a two-hour movie and failed to fully actualize any of them.

Dan: Claire Jarvis! I really liked Cary Fukunaga's film of Jane Eyre, starring Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender. But I know next to nothing about Brontë, having read maybe one-fifth of the novel in 11th grade. You're an assistant professor in the English department at Stanford, a Brontë scholar and a superfan. Tell me why I'm wrong to like this movie so much!

Claire: Dan Kois! I really suggest you read this novel. But, right away, I don't know if I'd say I was a Charlotte Superfan. I'm more of an Emily girl.

Claire: I think it did a lot of things well. Mia Wasikowska is a very good Jane. And, some of the dialogue (SOME of it) is really just pulled from the book. And Brontë, if anything, knows how to write a swoony chat. Wasikowska's delivery of the machine speech is pretty great.

Dan: Um, remind me what the machine speech is?

Claire: Oh! When Rochester asks Jane if, you know, she wants to be his wife, she takes him to task, asking him if he thinks because she lacks rank, she lacks feelings. So, in the novel, this speech is an important repetition of one of Brontë's central points: that a poor, unloved governess is equal, as a person, to a rich landowner.

Dan: It's interesting to me that it's delivered in terms of "feelings"—something that Wasikowska's very self-contained performance, up to that point, sort of elided. She wasn't unfeeling exactly but she managed to keep a stone face through some pretty crazy s$#!.

Claire: Yes, true. Vampire Madwomen in the Attic, for example.

Claire: But, feeling is really important for Brontë's novel. It's the thing that pulls Rochester towards Jane in the first place.

Claire: In the push to make it a ROMANTIC MOVIE, we get a kind of diminution in the class struggle at the core of the novel.

Dan: You mean, Fukunaga was like, "Well, if I have a really dynamite reading of the machine speech, I can get away with skipping the rest of the class-struggle stuff."

Dan: Which is funny in that his last movie, Sin Nombre—about a Honduran teenager trying to escape drug gangs—was awfully class-conscious.

Dan: Or at least class-not-unconscious.

Claire: And here’s the other problem I have. One of the great things, the truly wonderful things, about Jane Eyre is the narration. Jane's at once close, really close, and always at a distance from the reader. ("Reader, I married him.") The director nodded to this sometimes with the shaky first-person camera, but, really, it's missing from the film.

Dan: But that is so, so difficult to achieve in ANY film, not just a period film, not just a literary adaptation. I'm trying to think of a great period literary adaptation that used voice-over to deliver chunks of novel uncut.

Claire: My favorite 1st person narration adaptation has to be Winterbottom's Tristram Shandy, but only because that novel is wacky about its 1st person, as is the film. It's notoriously tricky to represent!

Dan: Yes—in that it required basically a practical-joke of a movie (a really, really effective one!) to pull it off.

Claire: And, the result, that Jane is the protagonist of the film, means that, through the whole thing, we're conditioned into "rooting" for her as the heroine—something which I think is more complicated in the novel, where she's both the source of our information AND the central figure of her story.

Claire: Also, the movie introduces the St. John stuff wayyy too early.

Dan: Hahaha so many gripes!

Dan: My primary problem with St. John was his muttonchops.

Claire: Part of the grossness/perversity of the St. John proposal is that it's like a total reinvention of Jane's life. Using it as a framing device really messed up the narrative patterning there.

Dan: Jamie Bell needs to make better choices in facial hair.

Claire: Like, a cigarette moustache?

Dan: By the end of the movie, during the proposal-ish deal, it seriously seemed like they were going to crawl off his face and do something horrifying in the moors.

Claire: Well, that would have been right: St. John is perhaps the best closeted homosexual in the Brontë canon. Sex with Jane would revolt him—it’s not clear if that’s because of the asceticism or something else.

Claire: Also Rochester: WAY TOO HANDSOME.

Let us pause to gaze upon Michael Fassbender.

Dan: DON'T BLAME MICHAEL FASSBENDER FOR BEING SO HANDSOME. HE CAN'T HELP IT.

Claire: But they couldn't find an UGLY actor to play Rochester?

Dan: They couldn't find an ugly actor to play Jane!

Claire: True. They did a good job of making her look like she was ugly, though she's pretty frigging luminous.

Claire: I know Olivier was hot, as was Pierce Brosnan, but HE IS NOT HOT in the book.

Dan: Like, how not hot?

Claire: Like... UGLY.

Dan: REALLY.

Claire: He is described as UGLY. He's like UGLY Heathcliff. He's still nice and chatty in the book, but... hagsville.

Dan: But why? Just to make us feel sorrier for Jane? To make him scarier from the get-go?

Claire: Because the whole thing is love -- the love that is the motive force of the novel -- is based on character, but a strange version of character. The end of this movie felt super clipped to me. "Oh, right, that's cool. You tried to bigamize me. No worries!"

Dan: So in the end the movie sort of argues for love IN SPITE of character, I get it.

Claire: Or, in character more broadly conceived than "moral character."

Dan: Nevertheless: I would be hard pressed to make the argument that looking at Michael Fassbender ever made a movie worse. You don't think there's some room for leeway in a movie like this? I know it added bodice-rippery elements, but it's hardly a bodice-ripper.

Claire: That is a shirty way of getting to a bigger issue I had, which is about the kind of passion that counts as passion in a contemporary movie. It's histrionic, while I think the Brontës very well do the tamped down crazy intense passion better than anyone in literature.

Dan: But would that ever read on a movie screen? Or would it just play as dull?

Claire: That's another side-product of film's failure to show interior I guess.

Dan: I get your larger point, though, or at least what I take to be your larger point—that just because a novel is old, and written by a lady, doesn't mean its primary purpose is romance.

Dan: Just because Austen adaptations as fluttery romances work so well doesn't mean that Brontë requires the same treatment.

Claire: Yes. And my larger issue is that by focusing on the romance, film adaptations get rid of some of the more provocative (and progressive) elements of old novels... Also, Austen isn't so fluttery.

Claire: I mean, the same issue I have with the whitewashing of the colonial plot on Jane Eyre could be said to hold in any Austen adaptation, even though Austen is by far a more conservative novelist. Don't even get me started on Emily Brontë. IMPOSSIBLE.

Dan: Sure, but that's not specific to old novels. I feel quite certain that in focusing on the romance, Hollywood eliminated some of the more provocative and progressive elements of Nicholas Sparks' The Notebook.

Claire: It's true. WHITEWASHED!

Dan: They completely removed its militant feminist subplot, and the section about class warfare.

Claire: I wouldn't ever say this was a TERRIBLE adaptation (though, I know, I did say that, but it was to goad you), but this is more a problem with assuming that books and movies do the same things when they tell stories.

Dan: They don’t! Which goes to the things I liked about this movie, the movie-specific things. For instance. it’s so literally dark!

Claire: I liked that.

Dan: I think it might be the darkest period picture since Barry Lyndon. And I liked those over-the-shoulder handheld shots.

Claire: Why did you like the handheld shots? I'm curious. Those drove me apeshit (technical term).

Dan: They said to me that Fukunaga was working hard to make this movie look different from other period pieces.

Dan: And feel different. Like its willingness to make its characters unappealing at times.

Dan: Rochester may be hot as s$#! but he is still a deeply offputting character in a way that, say, Colin Firth could never pull off.

Claire: Hmmm. Did you really get that sense? I was trying to figure out how repulsive he was.

Dan: I think those long conversations he had with Jane, where he's aggressive and demanding, and a dick to his kid, go a long way toward subverting the traditional movie-version of the period-piece starchy leading man.

Dan: Usually he's sort of priggy, or a little bit stuffy, or the heroine accidentally says something mortifying. But Rochester in this movie is just a douche for a long portion of it. A hot douche, but a douche.

Claire: Right. Ok, that's a good point. And a drunky douche at that.

Dan: Which I really liked!

Claire: Do you think most viewers read him as douchey, though? I wonder if the force of "HANDSOME ENGLISHMAN" is enough to produce a general swoon, no matter how crappy the behavior.

Dan: Well I think that's part of the point! In movie-land, that's a really potent combination. That's what movies can do so well that books can't—rub the surface against the interior and see what sparks can fly. It's different than what Brontë was doing, but I would argue it has a similar emotional effect on me, the viewer.

Claire: I think books CAN do that, though. In fact, I'd say that's exactly how the first person narration works. We get evidence about these crazy events, but it's all from the POV of one woman, a woman who is also very, very explicit about the writtenness of her account.

Claire: The novel can do things like this, it's just that we get used to the medial intervention in film (camera technique v. mise en scene) because they are so obviously different from one another (Victorians didn't have hand-held cameras).

Dan: Here's a question: Does Jane Eyre, the book, have any jokes?

Claire: Yeah.

Claire: I mean, not as many as Wuthering Heights, but that's because Charlotte was kind of a moralizing sadist (oops).

Dan: Cuz Jane Eyre, the movie, DOES NOT.

Dan: Other the visual gag of Adele's doll stuck up in the attic of her dollhouse, which made me LOL.

Claire: Well, again, that's like when "Mad Men" winkwink nudgenudges you about smoking during pregancy or something: "READER, YOU KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS."

Dan: Yes, well "Mad Men" has a narrator, even though he doesn't say a word out loud: It's Matthew Weiner, and he's pissed.

Claire: I would just say: if you liked the movie, give the novel a chance.

Claire: Like I said, I didn't hate the movie (though I tried), I just think that there are certain things that we can get when reading novels that we can't get when watching movies.

Dan: You have definitely convinced me to read Jane Eyre and then email you 200 questions about it.

Claire: Have you really never read it?

Dan: I have read more of Wide Sargasso Sea than of Jane Eyre.

Dan: But! I would also caution people who love the book to give the movie a chance.

Dan: Because there are things that movies do well that books cannot! And I think this movie does a lot of movie-things well.

Dan: Even less coarse. Anyway! Claire, if you complain too much about all the dropped subplots, you start to sound like one of those hobbit people complaining about Tom Bombadil.

Claire: No, no. I think what I would say is: the movie IS better than I said (initially) as a movie. But, when you adapt a novel, you do have to make a lot of choices. I guess I would have made some different choices, but I think anyone would. That's maybe the pleasure of being able to make a movie of a novel you love.

Dan: One things that movies do well is take complicated, rich, knotty novels, and turn them into swiftly-moving, emotionally potent stories. So when adaptations retain even a semblance of the original's complexity, I view that as sort of like whipped cream.

Claire: I also like whipped cream.

Dan Kois says if you think Fassbender was hot in this, you haven’t seen Fish Tank yet.

Claire Jarvis is an assistant professor in the English department at Stanford University. She does not care about Tom Bombadil.